need a lens to shoot bears, badgers and birds!

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
So a few weeks back I managed to get a lens bought by work, the 100mm 2.8 L macro.

Now they need some wildlife shots and I may be able to get another one out of them. I have the 70-300mm IS which I know would be ok, but if they are willing to buy me something better what should I go for?

Should I go for the 100-400L or one of the sigma variety's. I need something to shoot large mammals as well as some birds most likely, probably more on the larger animal size though but the overriding feature must be image quality.

I could either get something to complement the 70-300 I already have or something to replace it. Do I need 300mm if a lot of what I am shooting are large mammals etc in zoo's?

I always wanted a 70-200 2.8 IS L - can I jusitfy this as a wildlife lens?
 
I had the 70-300 IS USM and have literally just bought the 100-400 L and absolutely love it, I used it for the first time today and it is an absolutely cracking lens. I also shoot mainly in Zoo's. 300mm is usually enough to get through the fences but the 400 gives you that extra reach that bugs you when you don't have it and the images are cracking (although this could also be because it's the first time I've used the lens and I want to see a better image :D )...
 
the 400 f5.6 is slightly cheaper, slightly lighter, and less prone to dust etc. I'd get it above the 100-400, especially as you have much of that range covered. It also has a built in hood. In short, it is great.
The 70-200 is too short to be a useful wildlife lens, its strength lies in other areas.
 
I must admit that my main zoo lens is the 100 - 400 L but I have just got a sigma 70 - 200 2.8 and find the last couple of zoo trips I have used that just as much.
 
jalethbridge said:
the 400 f5.6 is slightly cheaper, slightly lighter, and less prone to dust etc. I'd get it above the 100-400, especially as you have much of that range covered. It also has a built in hood. In short, it is great.
The 70-200 is too short to be a useful wildlife lens, its strength lies in other areas.
Click to expand...

price isn't a factor here as I'm not the one buying it. I don't want a prime really as I need to shoot such a wide range of sized animals, but I see what you mean with regards to complementing the 70-300.

The 70-200 strength lying in other areas is actually why I want it - put it this way, I don't do a lot of wildlife stuff, but since work want some wildlife stuff and I get to keep the lens I'm angling at the 70-200 because then I get to use it for the stuff I do more of if you see what I mena
 
My main lens for zoo,s (large animals and small) is the 100-400, it is a great lens, as you have the 70-300, there would be a overlap, so may be worth looking at the 400 prime as you would get slightly better IQ, or another option would be the 300 F4 with a 1.4 converter for some flexibility and the IQ.
 
If I did get the 100-400L then I'd sell the 70-300 because of the overlap, I'm assuming the 100-400L gives better IQ than the 70-300
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top